alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

This certification is notto be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

 

In connection with theReport, we, Peter Blackmore and Francis P. Barton, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (i)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  as amended; and     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (ii)   |   | The information contained in the Report fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of  operations of the Company. |

 

 

Dated: August 11,2008

 
| By:    | /s/ PETER BLACKMORE                                          |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Peter Blackmore                                        |   |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer and President                 |   |
|   |                                                         |   |
| By:    | /s/ FRANCIS P. BARTON                                        |   |
|   | Name: Francis P. Barton                                      |   |
|   | Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----
# C_2022311EN.01000802.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T-797/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Decision to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation - Serious breach of the national provisions transposing Directive 2005/60/EC - Proportionality - Infringement of the national legislation on the governance of credit institutions - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 311/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB AG, formerly Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria), Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ketzer and O. Behrends, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, E. Yoo and V. Hümpfner, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-AT 8 WHD-2019 0009 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 14 November 2019, by which the ECB withdrew AAB Bank’s authorisation to access the activities of a credit institution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Anglo Austrian AAB AG and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those of the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Anglo Austrian AAB AG and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB), including those of the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-11134 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus JUAN GAMEZ-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-22
- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Gamez-Ortega appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to § 1326(a), simple reentry, which is limited to a maximum sentence of two years, but that he was sentenced as if he had pleaded guilty to reentry after an aggravated felony,No. 95-11134 -2- § 1326(b)(2). His argument is foreclosed by this court's opinion in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 889 (1994). AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 4358** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. KING SOLOMON, II, a/k/a Terry Lee Herron , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00486

- JAB

- 1 )

Submitted : November 18, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014

Before GREGORY and THAC KER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sophia L. Harvey , LIAO HARVEY PC , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina , for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney , Graham T. Green, Assistant United States Attorney , Greensboro , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM King Solomon , II , w as sentenced to six months of imprisonmen t and three years of supervised release for falsely impersonating a U nited S tates government official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (2012) ; falsely impersonating a foreign diplomat to avoid criminal prosecution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 915 (2012) ; and falsely impersonating a foreign diplomat and act ing as such, also in violation of § 915 . On appeal, Solomon only contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the § 915 charges. We affirm. We review a dist rict court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion de novo. United States v. Alerre , 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). We will affirm if, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the conviction is supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Hickman , 626 F.3d 756, 762

- 63 (4th Cir. 2010). “‘ Substantial evidence ’ is ‘ evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ’ ” United States v. Green , 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010) ( quoting United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en b anc) ). A defendant challenging evidentiary sufficiency “ faces a heavy burden,” as3 reversal of a conviction is limited to those circumstances in which “the prosecution’s failure is clear.” United States v.
Foster , 507 F.3d 233, 244

- 45 (4th Cir. 2007) (int ernal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed t he record and conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Solomon falsely represented himself as a foreign dipl omat . Further, we reject Solomon’s contention that the Government was required to prove that he claimed to represent a specific foreign government. Under these circumstances, w e conclude that the district court did not err in denying Solomon’s Rule 29 mo tion for acquittal on the § 915 charges
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
S. 990 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small 

Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PATRIOT Sunsets Extension 

Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 2. SUNSET EXTENSIONS. 

(a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT

OF 2005.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement 

and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–177; 50 U.S.C. 

1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended 

by striking ‘‘May 27, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘June 1, 2015’’. 

(b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

OF 2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458; 50 U.S.C. 

1801 note) is amended by striking ‘‘May 27, 2011’’ and inserting 

‘‘June 1, 2015’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
S. Con. Res. 29 Agreed to October 3, 2011

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL 

TO PRESENT THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The rotunda of the United States Capitol 

is authorized to be used on November 16, 2011 for the presentation 

of the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Neil A. Armstrong, 

Edwin E. ‘‘Buzz’’ Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel 

Glenn, Jr., in recognition of their significant contributions to society. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the conduct of 

the event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect 

of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1704

ORVILLE LEWIS, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER, Hopewell Police

Department; WAYNE CLEVELAND, Chief of Police,

Hopewell Police Department; DAN WETTA,

Chairman and CEO, John Randolph Medical

Center; JOSEPH WALKER, Security Officer;

PATRICIA L. WILLIAMS, Attorney-in-Fact; JOYCE

W. WILLIAMS, Caregiver,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-02-141-3)

Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 30, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orville Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Patricia L. Williams, Joyce

W. Williams, Appellees; David Patrick Corrigan, HARMAN, CLAYTOR,

CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia; Michael John Otten, LECLAIR

RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Orville Lewis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Lewis v. Unknown Police

Officer, No. CA-02-141-3 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2002). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Weaks v. White

Request for Extension

PAGE 1 CA SE NO. 12

- 14

- 00253

- CV

JERRY WEAKS and § IN THE COURT OF

JOYCE WEAKS, APPEALS FOR

TWELFTH COURT OF

APPELLANT APPEALS DISTRICT

OF TEXAS

§

V.

§

KATHLEEN JEANETTE

WHITE

, §

APPELLEE §

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

TO THE HONO RABLE CO URT:

This will certify and confirm that the undersigned attorney for the Appellants has

forwarded notice to Ms. Jane P a rreiras

- Horta, the attorney for the Appellee

, in regard to the

Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file the motion for rehearing. Thus, the undersigned

has attempted to confer with opposing counsel and is awaiting a response from same.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aubrey L. Jones, Jr.

_________________________________ __ Aubrey L. Jones, Jr.

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 10859100

P.O. Box 168

106 W. Tyler St.Weaks v. White

Request for Extension

PAGE 2 Athens, Texas 75751

Telephone: (903) 675

- 7990

Fax: (903) 67 0

- 3424

Email: aubreyjoneslaw@embarqmail.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This will certify that a true and correct copy of the abov e Certificate of Conference has

been served on Appellee ’s attorney of record, M s. Jane Parreiras

- Horta, in accordance with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Signed this __ 2nd ____ day of November ___, 20 1 5

.

/s/ Aubrey L. Jones, Jr.

______________________________ ___ Aubrey L. Jones, Jr.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 16 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 16

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2011

           Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
       for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF 
              KING KAMEHAMEHA.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on June 5, 2011, to celebrate the 
birthday of King Kamehameha.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate May 10, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
# C_2019131EN.01002801.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9 (Czech Republic) lodged on 12 February 2019 — XR v Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost

(Case C-107/19)

(2019/C 131/34)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XR

Defendant: Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a break period in which an employee must be available to his employer within two minutes, in case there is an emergency call out, to be considered ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a break period in which an employee must be available to his employer within two minutes, in case there is an emergency call out, to be considered ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time?

| 2. | Is the assessment to be made in relation to the question above influenced by the fact that such interruption [of the break] in the event of an emergency call out occurs only at random and unpredictably or, as the case may be, by how often such interruption occurs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the assessment to be made in relation to the question above influenced by the fact that such interruption [of the break] in the event of an emergency call out occurs only at random and unpredictably or, as the case may be, by how often such interruption occurs?

| 3. | Can a court of first instance, ruling after its decision has been set aside by a higher court and the case referred back to it for further proceedings, fail to comply with a legal opinion pronounced by the higher court and which is binding on the court of first instance, if that opinion conflicts with EU law ? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can a court of first instance, ruling after its decision has been set aside by a higher court and the case referred back to it for further proceedings, fail to comply with a legal opinion pronounced by the higher court and which is binding on the court of first instance, if that opinion conflicts with EU law ?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principals;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  By:    /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President and Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            8500
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             616
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    75
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      76227
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           16313
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             16990
<LOANS>                                         159665
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  272453
<DEPOSITS>                                      231071
<SHORT-TERM>                                      3409
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2055
<LONG-TERM>                                      11284
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6392
<OTHER-SE>                                       18242
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  272453
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  13774
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 5267
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   384
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 19425
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                8806
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9839
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9586
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      402
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (13)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   7715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3753
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3753
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2887
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.87
<LOANS-NON>                                         33
<LOANS-PAST>                                       562
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   180
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1860
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      213
<RECOVERIES>                                        52
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2101
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2101
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM 39111

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Patrick M. BARNES Airman First Class (E

- 3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the Unite d S tates Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 25 July 2017

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 16 months
, and reduction to E

- 1. Sentence adjudged 26 May 2016 by GCM convened at T inker Air Force Base, Oklahoma

. For Appellant: Major Mark C. Bruegger , USAF.

For Appellee: M ajor Meredith L. Steer, USAF; Gerald R. Bruce , Esquire

. Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and SPERANZA
, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpu blished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellan t ’ s substantial rights occurred . Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice
, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).United States v. Barnes , No. ACM 39111

2 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER Clerk of the Court